Dude. Someone who had never been the subject of an arbcom ruling was
ordered banned by the arbcom for violation of a ruling in a case that
happened before they started using Wikipedia.
This was in fact the arbcom declaring that LaRouche viewpoints are not
to be introduced to articles and that doing so could get one banned.
If the ruling only applyed to Herchel and some other people, that would
have been one thing. But the ruling was used BY THE ARBCOM to justify a
ban on someone who was uninvolved in the dispute they had ruled on.
Worse, the LaRouche point of view was ordered out of an article on
someone who was involved in the LaRouche movement. It's not as though
this was something like the Frankfurt School, where I have argued
against the inclusion of the LaRouche view on the grounds that it was
not a relevant or significant viewpoint.
That was an overstepping of the arbcom's mandate. The validity of
including a viewpoint in an article needs to be taken on a case by case
basis. In certain cases (Such as the people involved in the original
LaRouche ruling) it may b appropriate to curb specific people from
editing to include specific viewpoints. But to ban a viewpoint from all
articles and to create a rule that applies to users who have had no
case brought against them and against future users of Wikipedia is not
within the arbcom mandate.
And that is exactly what happened.
-Snowspinner
On Nov 27, 2004, at 3:56 PM, Robert wrote:
Snowspinner writes:
I'm seriously concerned about a recent
arbcom
enforcement. A ban was ordered against [[User:C Colden]]
as per the ruling in the case of Lyndon LaRouche.
....However, the ruling of the case, apparently, was a
ruling against the insertion of "original research
originating with the LaRouche movement" (Which seems
to be an interchangable phrase with "the LaRouche point
of view") into any article by any user.
This is a false charge. You are making this up. No one is
claiming that an NPOV description of LaRouche's point of
view is original research, or is forbidden. Your claim is
nonsense.
The problem here is that many Larouche supporters violate
Wikipedia editorial policy by shoving in their own original
research, or pushing their own personal point-of-view as
fact. Further, they systematically distort many Wikipedia
articles by pushing the Larouche POV in places where it has
no meaning or relevance. They are taking the POV of a
fringe, cult-like convicted criminal, and falsely
presenting it as a POV that is just as widely accepted as
those of any mainstream political party.
One could do the same thing with any of a dozen other
fringe self-styled political leaders who have been
convicted of crimes. However, the views of a self-styled
political messiah with little following does not deserve
the grand attention and treatment that a handful of
LaRouche supporters are giving it. Further, his views
certainly must be presented in an NPOV way without any
original research, which is not what his supporters do.
This seems to me to reflect a hard arbcom ruling
that
the LaRouche POV is not something that need be included
under the Wikipedia NPOV policy.
Nonsense. This is a strawman argument against a position
that no one has made.
As loathesome as I find the LaRouche movement to
be,
I am seriously troubled by the notion that the arbcom
can and will make blanket rulings that certain
perspectives are not part of NPOV.
Nonsense. You are arguing a strawman criticism that a
number of LaRouche supporters have been doing here for some
time. We aren't falling for it.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l